How to ruin your Olympic image: suppress your critics

Blogger "lao jiang" has posted this humorous flash file: a clock counting down the days till the Olympics are finished. We're going to see more and more of these kinds of viral jokes - many people it seems aren't against the Olympics being held in China per se, they just can't wait for the games and all related insanity to be over. Mind you, a lot of people in Sydney, Athens, and Atlanta felt the same way.

Jim Yardley has a story today in the NYT titled Dissident's Arrest Hints at Olympmic Crackdown. He mainly talks about Hu Jia's case, but mentions others as well. Zeng Jinyan, the famous human rights blogger and Hu Jia's wife, remains under house arrest with their two month old baby in their apartment. While the government claims they've relaxed controls on journalist interviews, Yardley was prevented by police from interviewing Zeng. In his article he describes how the police hastily put up "crime scene" tape around the area. I'm quoted in the article saying that the Chinese government is shooting themselves in the foot by behaving this way.

What Olympics host city or country hasn't had critics?  A quick Google search turns up plenty of information about dissent and protests surrounding previous games.  Do any of us remember hearing much about these things in the international media at the time? I don't. Why?  Because the host governments treated dissent as a normal thing and didn't go around throwing everybody in jail or suppressing their publications. And guess what? The international media didn't pay too much attention to the dissenters and protestors anyway. What the Chinese government doesn't get is that the mainstream international media views protest and dissent as a pretty normal thing which often isn't newsworthy in it's own right about 80% of the time - that is, unless you make martyrs out of the protestors and dissenters and put their 2-month old babies under house arrest. Then it becomes a big story, regardless of whether or not the dissenters are even making a coherent or logical point, or whether they have much of a following.

Why can't China accept that dissent and argument are part of being a normal country? Why behave in such an insecure manner that violates international human rights norms, damages China's international image, and distracts media attention away from the Chinese people's genuine accomplishments over the past 30 years - as well as from the excitement of the sports competition itself?  The only rational conclusion can be one of the following: a) China's security and law-enforcement apparatus is out of control, unaccountable, power-hungry, and can't be reined in by the other branches of the government; b) the Chinese government really is on the verge of losing its grip at any moment and thus really has more reason than we realize to fear all of its citizens.

The other problem is that the Chinese government acts like it views pretty much all criticism as anti-China, intended to drag the country down and deny the Chinese nation the global status it deserves. I wouldn't be surprised if somebody from the Foreign Ministry complains to the NYT about Jim's article - not that the NYT will heed the complaint. But foreigners who publish things highlighting criticism of how Beijing is handling the Olympics, or who point out that maybe some citizens aren't so happy about hosting the games, or that some think the money might have been better spent elsewhere, tend to be considered "not friends of China."  This is false, and sad.  A couple years ago, after Hu Jia was released from detention the first time around and when my friend Wu Hao had gone missing, I wrote about how outsiders like myself who've spent a lot of time living and working in China want the Chinese people to succeed, want them to be recognized and rewarded for their successes, and believe that the international community should engage with China. The Chinese people deserve no less. The point is not to "demonize" China or treat it like an enemy who should be prevented from succeeding. But how can we respect this  regime when people we know to be good people are jailed, and their children and spouses harrassed, for no good reason we can see? Somehow Beijing needs to stop shooting itself in the foot. The leaders in Beijing should be proud of their intelligent, hardworking people who naturally hold a diverse range of ideas and opinions. Stop fearing them, or you'll turn more citizens who originally supported you into opponents.

UPDATE:

Somebody just pointed out to me that Jinyan's blog has a new post, showing a picture of her 2-month old daughter followed by the caption: "In the Harmonious Society, the World's Smallest Political Prisoner - Hu Qianci" (Jan.31 update: name is corrected - I wrote the pinyin wrong yesterday). Ironically the baby's given name means "modest and compassionate". Seriously, if the Chinese security apparatus intentionally wanted to subvert state power, they couldn't be doing a better job.  Jinyan also points us to the memorial website for a baby martyred in 1949 for the cause of China's Communist revolution.

Comments

[Peter]

@mahathir_fan: It's not the task of the western press (or any press) to create a balanced picture - at least it is not what drives them, and thus they seem not to be capable of creating such a picture. You could of course compare the western press with the mainstream press the Hu/Zeng issue creates in China (none?), and see which one fares better in terms of providing such a balanced picture.

But ultimately it's the task of each one of us to reach a balanced conclusion. And by simply picking and choosing whom you believe (and, of all the people commenting here, you chose to believe "CCT") you chose to avoid facing this challenge.

My advice: Seek truth from facts. Not from wishful thinking or wearing ideological blinders.

Fact is that in China, as elsewhere, sick, poor, and underprivileged are suffering.

Fact is that in China, as elsewhere, there are people who are trying to help those who are sick, poor, and underprivileged.

Now: In China, is it made easy for these people to help, is there an institutional framework that supports them in their endeavor to strive for the betterment of society? Or are these people marginalized and punished for what they are trying to do? Prevented from speaking out or visiting their clients? Accused of collaborating with foreign devils out to harm the credibility and honor of China?

The facts that could help us find answers to these crucial questions are all out there, but it requires an immense effort to collect them, and it requires us to develop the independent critical thinking that helps us assess where we stand. For me, "CCT's" assessment is one of many, and although "CCT" may be feeding convenient beliefs, I would not follow your conclusion that "CCT" has a monopoly on the truth.

*Believing is seeing.* But seeing the truth is incredibly difficult, and does require you to take off those nationalist ideological blinders that you (as a 'fan' of 'mahathir') - seem to prefer wearing.

Do you really care about the truth? Then try and convince the Chinese government that Hu's lawyer should be allowed to see him, and that open engagement with the underlying social issues that have led to Hu's arrest and Zeng's house arrest will ultimately facilitate the creation of a truly harmonious society. Hu and Zeng have now become leading symbols of China's human rights problems. But I'm sure that if they'd have the choice, they might as well prefer to work on the ground and help those sick, poor, and underprivileged, and to help China on its quest to host a harmonious Olympics and create a truly harmonious society.

Just my 2ct.

[Sophia]

As a close follower of Hu Jia’s case, I find it hard to remain silent after reading the comments posted here. Being an occasional cynic myself, I can understand why there are so many doubts and controversies surrounding the ‘Hu Jia’ issue. However, I find these doubts (which could have derived from prejudices) very troubling as they cloud our vision and prevent us from seeing what is right and wrong. Therefore, I would like to highlight some facts and bring up some questions that hopefully will make us look at this whole issue from a fairer and more humane perspective

I also encourage those who only have little background knowledge of this issue to make use of the internet to find out more. There is a lot of information online in both English and Chinese.

Let’s say we give the authorities the benefit of the doubt and assume that Hu Jia is really guilty of ‘incitement to subvert state power’ (which in my opinion is not necessarily a crime), he and his family should still have access to their human rights which are as follow (please also refer to the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ as well as other international human rights conventions):

1) Hu Jia and Zeng Jinyan should have access to see their lawyer; until now, this right is still being denied. Without a lawyer, there is no guarantee that the trial will be fair for Hu Jia. Lack of fairness in trials will erode people’s trust in the legal system (in fact, people are already losing trust in it).
2) Hu Jia’s lawyer has been placed under tight surveillance and even house arrest by the police and thus, prevented from visiting Hu Jia and Zeng Jinyan. Limiting a citizen’s freedom of movement and also a lawyer’s right to serve his clients are human rights violations.
3) So far, police has refused to accept medications from the family members intended for Hu Jia who has a chronic liver condition. Right to receive medical treatment is denied.
4) If Zeng Jinyan is also guilty, then why was she not detained but placed under house arrest instead? It is illegal to imprison her and her infant at home, cut off her communication channels and take away her bank cards, cell phones and computers. What is the justification for these actions? If the government has a legal basis to arrest Hu Jia, do they have to fear Zeng to the extent of putting her under house arrest to silence her? Clearly, they have violated many fundamental rights of this young mother.
5) Friends and journalists have been denied access to visit Jinyan and her infant; daily necessities such as milk powder and diapers brought by friends were confiscated by the police. Again, what is the justification for these actions?

Though a legal assessment of the whole issue is necessary, I feel it is incomplete if we do not include the human rights perspective. China has established many laws and regulations but laws can be unjust, especially in a situation when the legislative body is overpowered by an authoritarian regime.

If the government is really doing the right thing based on the evidence they are now holding against Hu Jia, then they should not be afraid to let Zeng Jinyan step out of the house and communicate with the outside world. The Chinese authorities could also hold an open trial so as to let all of us have a more balanced judgement/view, instead of letting the Western press as well as the public speculating and even condemning the Chinese government, thus bringing bad publicity for the Beijing Olympics.

Based on the information that I got from the internet so far, the couple’s financial support comes mainly from Zeng’s job (which has stopped since her house arrest) and Hu’s parents who run a small business. The parents paid for the flat (which, located in the outskirts of Beijing, is much less expensive than people may think) and the car actually belongs to Hu’s sister. If they wanted to, the authorities could easily verify these, I believe. As John Kennedy mentioned, the couple doesn’t need a lot of money as they have simple lifestyles.

@CCT (as well as @mahathir_fan): “Hu's closest supporters are actually defending the Communist Party's position on suppressing his type of dissent?” My opinion on why Hu’s closest family members and friends may appear to stand on the side of the government is because of fear. Many decades of political movements, countless cases of arbitrary detention, lack of an independent judicial system, and (sometimes violent) suppression of critical voices have instilled a sense of fear in the people. So, in order to lead a more peaceful and trouble-free life, many people choose to self-censor and distance themselves from politics. This is very evident in China and elsewhere too. Only a few are able to free themselves from fear and dare to speak the truth. Though Hu Jia’s parents are, as you mentioned in your comment, Communist Party members, they had experienced suppression after being labelled as ‘rightists’ during the Cultural Revolution. Linking to what Peter alluded to earlier, being a CCP member in China does not always mean blind loyalty. I have come across CCP members who openly criticize the Chinese government.

Sadly, human rights have been overly politicized and many see it merely as political tools used by politicians to get what they want and hence, they turn their heads away when there is a public outcry of human rights abuses. Every country or regime, including those democratic governments, has records of human rights infringements. The key is not to see which countries have the most or the least human rights violations as it is *not a competition!* The key is also not to react defensively and say that ‘this is a sovereign matter’ or ‘mind your own business as you are not much better’. Such seemingly childish political games lead nowhere as there are no winners.

Instead, as human beings, we should all express our condemnation and urge the authorities to clean up their act whenever and wherever we see clearly with our own eyes that someone’s rights have been taken away from him or her, regardless of whether we share similar religious beliefs, ethnicity, or nationality. It is only when we stand up and act in solidarity then we are on the road to achieve a higher level of humanity.

If the Chinese government fails to respect those human rights stated above and elsewhere, then the goal of attaining a harmonious society will be far beyond reach.

[mahathir_fan]

I just found this on the web about Hu Jia:

"One possibility may have been his participation via Webcam in a Nov. 26 European Parliament hearing, when he reportedly said it was "ironic that one of the people in charge of organizing the Olympic Games is the head of the Bureau of Public Security, which is responsible for so many human rights violations.""

Wow..Chinese laws are really lax. If this happened in Malaysia, one would probably be in jail or have its citizenship revoked or detention for up to 2 years without trial under the Internal Security Act. Shouldn't he be charged for treason and face possible jail time or a revocation of his citizenship?

I'm now beginning to wonder if his parent's membership in the Communist Party is behind the scenes helping to free their son from jail time and instead getting a reduced sentence of a house arrest instead.

That's something to consider, why is someone like him only getting a house arrest and not official jail time like in most countries?

[Peter]

@mahathir_fan: You are asking: "Shouldn't he be charged for treason and face possible jail time or a revocation of his citizenship?"

Where I come from (Germany), Hu would probably be lauded for his civic courage while the judicial system would look for facts that either corroborate or refute these allegations.

I'm sorry to learn that the ideas of "free speech", "human rights," or "independent judicial system" have not made their way to Malaysia. This difference explains your views.

Despite the huge discrepancy between our ways of seeing, I hope that one day we are going to reach a consensus on this one.

By the way, Malaysia, Burma, China, and some African and Middle Eastern countries can hardly be considered "most countries."

[mahathir_fan]

The point of my asking that question is to see if HuJia's father had used his position as a member of the Communist Party to get a reduced sentence for HuJia (jail time vs. house arrest with internet connection).

If he did so, then it is understandable why HuJia is no longer allowed to see his lawyer as the authorities may have viewed this case as "settled" and the deal with his dad as some sort of a under the table plea bargain.

Reporters need to investigate this case from this angle so that we can get a clearer big picture of what is happening. Why are the authorities not pursuing this case and prosecuting HuJia to the full extend of the law? Then, Hujia would either be acquitted or serve jail time.

While many like you criticize this house arrest, the people close to HuJia like his Dad may instead view this house arrest as a chance for his son to avoid potential jail time had they pursued full legal remedies.

Its a choice: Do you want to get a few months of house arrest with internet access and all the comforts of home, or take your chances at the court of law and if good luck then acquitted or if bad luck, serve jail time? Someone may have made the choice for him.

We need to know.

"By the way, Malaysia, Burma, China, and some African and Middle Eastern countries can hardly be considered "most countries."

It should include a couple of European countries too afterall, our treason laws originated from laws made during the colonial era to prosecute our independent fighters.

[Peter]

@mahathir_fan: Our ways of seeing the world are simply too different. We can not even establish a common language. Sadly, I thus have no choice but giving up on reaching a consensus with MF on this one.

Let me ask a last question: In your opinion, this is about Hu receiving a "reduced sentence" for *what* offense?

Treason?

You must be kidding me.

I now understand Rebecca's comment above regarding "MF."

[Peter]

"I don't know if it's better to speak out or keep silent, but if everyone keeps silent, the truth will be buried."
(A 17-year-old Chinese blogger from Guangdong, cited in the NYT Feb. 4th article "Great Firewall of China Faces Online Rebels").

In my (informed) opinion, Hu Jia's and Zeng Jinyan's offense was to speak out. This is *not* an act of treason.

[zhwj]

mahathir_fan: Please re-read the post and the linked articles. Indeed, someone made the choice for him, but not in the way you are implying.

Hu Jia is not under house arrest: he was taken into custody in December and is still being held. His wife and child are the ones under house arrest with no Internet connection.

[mahathir_fan]

Speaking out is not treason. I have always advocated free speech myself. I myself is always against censorship. But what is happening in this case and in many other cases, are not the typical free speech. Example is Gitlow vs. New York US Supreme Court case. Other examples include underground political publications during colonial times aimed at overthrowing the colonial rule. Or when Gandhi spoke out against the British.

In all cases, one could argue it is their free speech. But as Judge Sanford in Gitlow vs. New York stated, ""State may punish utterances endangering the foundations of government and threatening its overthrow by unlawful means" because such speech clearly "present[s] a sufficient danger to the public peace and to the security of the State.""

China does not appear to be against criticism. In Article 41 of the constitution: Citizens of the People's Republic of China have the right to criticize and make suggestions to any state organ or functionary.

The court will decide if Hu Jia spoke out because he intended to subvert the Socialist system of China (violation of Article 1) or intended to incite violence, or unlawful means to overthrow the government. If the court finds him guilty of the above, there is no obligation for his rights to still be protected by the very government he is intending to overthrow. This is true in all of human history and in all countries from Jesus Christ all the way to Gandhi to today. If you intend to use your free speech to unlawfully overthrow the government, you will go to jail.

Hu Jia can certainly take his chances in court.

Sorry, I don't know much about what happened to him recently, I only remember him being house arrested and he made a video of it. CCT may be able to explain more. I think its a quite overboard to house arrest the mother and the baby if that is true.

I think what we seem to lose track is that China has ballot boxes out every 5 years where people who are dissatisfied with the system can use the ballot boxes to lawfully make changes and even to run for offices themselves. I would even go as far as to call China a democracy because if every Chinese citizen were to not vote for the Communist Party at these elections, then technically the next President of China would not be a communist party member.

[Peter]

1)There are laws, and there is reality, just as there is theory and there is practice. They should be related, but often are not.
2) Free speech is free speech is free speech, whether it is critical to government or other institution. Otherwise, all governments would never need to fear criticisms. Obviously governments would love that, but, as history shows, over the long duree, I doubt most citizens would (as the saying goes, "power corrupts")
3) Hu Jia has, to the best of my knowledge, never spoken out in order to subvert or overthrow the government (and has never openly called for a ban of the Olympics); he has, however, criticized the regime for failing to address issues related to helping the sick and disadvantaged of society. Who is to decide about where the boundary between these issues lies, in a country without an independent judicial system?
4) Anyone going so far as to "call China a democracy" seems to have lost touch with reality (in China), in my opinion.

[mahathir_fan]

People who don't like the Chinese government should do the following:

1) Boycott the Olympics
2) Boycott Made in China products

I have pushed for the above a long time. I myself do not do the above because I don't dislike the Chinese government. But I highly encourage those who dislike them to do the above.

[Peter]

This is hardly a binary matter of like vs. dislike. I do not see how your suggestion facilitates the creative engagement and open discussion necessary to create change.

[Twofish]

1)There are laws, and there is reality, just as there is theory and there is practice. They should be related, but often are not.

In the case of freedom of speech, the laws of the People's Republic of China actually do come pretty close to reality. Those laws have some very repressive elements in them, but that's another issue.

Having clear laws and fair trials helps the Communist Party enormously at repressing dissidents, since it prevents a public swell of support for them. Also quite bluntly, one of the purposes of the system is to separate out people who are really dangerous to the Party from people who are innocent bystanders.

3) Hu Jia has, to the best of my knowledge, never spoken out in order to subvert or overthrow the government (and has never openly called for a ban of the Olympics);

The precise charge is "subverting public order" and this usually means crossing the red line of attempting to organize people as a pressure group to influence the Communist Party. You can argue that the charge is unjust and that's one thing.

However, you can't argue that the dividing line between what will get you in trouble in China and what won't is unclear or that Hu Jia "accidentally" crossed the line.

3) Who is to decide about where the boundary between these issues lies, in a country without an independent judicial system?

I don't see how "judicial independence" is going to help you here. There are certain activities that will get you in trouble and organizing with other people in order to pressure the Communist Party is going to get you in trouble. You can try to argue that you weren't organizing people, and that's one thing.

You can also try to argue that "organizing people to pressure the Party into changing policy" isn't "subversion of public order" but you run into the problem that the people who wrote the laws obviously thinks that it is.

In any case, the Communist Party effectively decides what those lines are. It curiously has a very strong incentive not to draw those lines too broadly. If the Party tries to control things too much, then everyone runs the risk of being a dissident. By drawing the lines narrowly and clearly, you have fewer people marked as dissidents, but it does mean that the Party can strike at them harder without them getting public support.

Also, a "fair trial" may be beside the point. A judge might well take a look at the charges and throw them out, but that won't happen until after the Olympics.

mahatir_fan: Wow..Chinese laws are really lax.

I'd argue that Chinese laws are pretty strict. There are limits to what the police and the Party can do to you.

mahatir_fan: If this happened in Malaysia, one would probably be in jail or have its citizenship revoked or detention for up to 2 years without trial under the Internal Security Act.

There are no provisions in Chinese law for revoking citizenship, and a few months is the realistic maximum that you can detain someone without some sort of hearing for a serious charge.

Personally, I think that the Internal Security Act is a horrible thing and I'm glad that China doesn't have anything similar.

mahatir_fan: Shouldn't he be charged for treason and face possible jail time or a revocation of his citizenship?

There is no formal charge of treason in PRC law. There are various laws that cover what treason would in other countries (Articles 102-113) but Hu Jia has done nothing to violate them. Now Article 103 does make it a serious crime to "split the country and undermine national unity" but as far as I know Hu Jia's actions aren't covered under this clause.

What's really sad is that I don't see any provision in Chinese law that would allow Hu Jintao to do anything that is similar to what Bush was trying to do with military commissions.

[Twofish]

mahathir_fan: The court will decide if Hu Jia spoke out because he intended to subvert the Socialist system of China.

My prediction is that this thing will never go to trial and that the police and prosecutors will decide that there are no grounds to charge Hu Jia with subversion, and he will be quietly released with police following him everywhere he goes..... After the Olympics....

One thing that the Chinese government has figured out is that less repression is sometimes more effective repression. Just like they are not putting in a total block on the outside world with the internet, I think they've figured that just putting someone under "police investigation" is more likely to get them to behave than throwing them in jail for decades.

mahathir_fan: If the court finds him guilty of the above, there is no obligation for his rights to still be protected by the very government he is intending to overthrow.

Yes there is.

I should point out that one reason that China has a surprisingly detailed set of criminal procedure law is that Chinese leaders have been often on the wrong end of the judicial process, and Hu Jintao wants to give people convicted of crimes rights, since the thought has probably occurred to him that someday he might be in the defendants chair if he loses a power struggle.

[Peter]

@TwoFish: I agree with much you write, but...

You write: "Having clear laws and fair trials helps the Communist Party enormously at repressing dissidents, since it prevents a public swell of support for them. Also quite bluntly, one of the purposes of the system is to separate out people who are really dangerous to the Party from people who are innocent bystanders."

That's what I meant by saying that laws and reality are two different things. It shouldn't be possible to use laws to prevent a public swell of support, or to silence people who are dangerous to Party legitimacy. And yet, it is possible.

And your wording "innocent bystanders" -- how about replacing "innocent" by "docile"?

You also say: "You can also try to argue that "organizing people to pressure the Party into changing policy" isn't "subversion of public order" but you run into the problem that the people who wrote the laws obviously thinks that it is."

The people who wrote the laws are, or are influenced by the people who benefit from them. Thus I argued for the importance of an independent judiciary. Isn't it convenient for those who wrote (better: signed off on) the laws that these laws rule out any kind of subversive activity, and that the definition of what constitutes such activity is left to 'liberal' interpretation?

You wrote: "My prediction is that this thing will never go to trial and that the police and prosecutors will decide that there are no grounds to charge Hu Jia with subversion, and he will be quietly released with police following him everywhere he goes..... After the Olympics...."

I hope that you're right but I do have some doubts. Wouldn't be the first time that charges are trumped up, based on invented evidence. And as the majority believes that there must be something wrong with what Hu Jia did, it would be 'smart' for the Chinese govt to indicate (through convicting him in a court of law) that they were right about arresting him.

And besides, from a human rights point of view, whether this thing goes to trial or not is not even the issue. The issue is that as a Chinese citizen, Hu Jia doesn't have any. Human rights, that is.

Last but not least, you wrote: "One thing that the Chinese government has figured out is that less repression is sometimes more effective repression. Just like they are not putting in a total block on the outside world with the internet, I think they've figured that just putting someone under "police investigation" is more likely to get them to behave than throwing them in jail for decades."

Yes, I agree, and the resulting regime of self-censorship works great. But this is not the characteristic of a society based on law. It's what police states do.

Again, there's the discrepancy between representation and reality, between theory and practice. Does this encourage trust in China's ruling elite, either by citizens or by the outside world? No, not from my perspective.

[Don Morrison]

A word about Gitlow v New York, which some misinformed soul keeps citing. It's been thoroughly repudiated by the U.S. judicial system, which for nearly half century has upheld the right to speak out against the government -- even to use words that advocate its overthrow.